small format: First Independent Test of Ektachrome 64T

[ccortez]

(i'm one of the weirdos who likes grain)...

count me among the weirdos. reticulation es bueno. i don't understand the arguments that less grain == better stock w/o considering other factors like sharpness, color repro, etc.

[jean]

There is no such thing as a better stock

If you need grainless, it sucks, if you need latitude, both suck. If you want perfect grainless image and latitude, shoot 35mm neg. But camera sucks, and so does price.

It's a words of compromise, wherever you look.

[ccortez]

thanks for the "glass half empty" analysis, jean! ;-p

but i completely agree: there is no "better", just characteristics that one may or may not like/need.

[Alex]

There all better, and there all worse, depending on how well one matches the film stock look with the feel and mood that one is trying to evoke.

The reason I am hoping that Ektachrome is close enough to Kodachrome 40 is that it means I can format jump (make a project look it's something better than average 8mm) if I desire.

[Rob]

There is no such thing as a better stock.

If that were true, and there was no objective measure of the quality of the filmed image, we would see as many films at the cinema filmed on Super 8 as we would on 35mm. We would see Super 8 IMAX. That we don't attests to the fact that grain and definition are critical to the quality of the image. Apart from those who want a degraded image for artistic purposes, we would all be filming in a larger format if we could afford it. Grain is cruical and for that reason 64T is going to be a poorer stock than K40.

Rob

[Angus]

Well Rob, I've said this before and I shall say it again.

There is nobody who is claiming that 64T will be as suited to super 8 as K40 is, nobody claiming it will be as widely available or cheap or convenient as K40 is.

It might well be a useful film to have in the "toolbox", being E6 processing can be achieved at home, there's a slight but significant speed advantage (for those who can expose it correctly) but it won't actually look much like K40 so it is not, in any way shape or form, replacing K40.

But since we shall have to use it in place of K40 I am hoping that it is suitable, stable, gives sharp images with grain closer to K40 than 7240 and that maybe...just maybe...I'll have some more processing options than Berlin, Holland and my kitchen sink.

[Alex]

There is no such thing as a better stock.

....we would all be filming in a larger format if we could afford it. Grain is cruical and for that reason 64T is going to be a poorer stock than K40.

Rob

Sorry to disagree, but once again the advantage of the camera options and features is being ignored. It's the COMBINATION of a such a potentially wonderful stock as Kodachrome AND the many options and features found on many SUPER-8 cameras that I believe to be a potent combination.

I now hope that I will be able to manipulate Ektachrome when transfering to video to make it close enough to Kodachrome minimal grain.

[Rob]

It's the COMBINATION of a such a potentially wonderful stock as Kodachrome AND the many options and features found on many SUPER-8 cameras that I believe to be a potent combination.

Thats a fair point, particularly for those who do not edit digitally, but lets suppose for the sake of argument that the frame for frame cost (including film,processing and transfer) of 16mm were the same as super8, how long would super8 be around?

Rob

[Angus]

THere would still be a size advantage for super 8, quite how I'd lug 16mm cams around or store the reels of film I simply don't know...not to mention where would I put the projector!

But I do think most people would switch to 16mm if it were just as cheap frame for frame as super 8 and if the equipment were just as cheap.

The fact remains...it isn't.

[mattias]

There is no such thing as a better stock.

If that were true, and there was no objective measure of the quality of the filmed image, we would see as many films at the cinema filmed on Super 8 as we would on 35mm.

no, because for their purpose 35mm was probably better, which doesn't necessarily mean it's inherently better. and besides i think what we're talking about is emulsions and not gauges. everybody knows that there's always more resolution in a larger format given the same emulsion.

/matt

[Rob]

no, because for their purpose 35mm was probably better, which doesn't necessarily mean it's inherently better. and besides i think what we're talking about is emulsions and not gauges. everybody knows that there's always more resolution in a larger format given the same emulsion.

/matt

But apart from those requiring a gritty degraded look, for whose purposes would an 8mm image be better than a 35mm image? What I'm saying is that better resolution is desirable, whether its obtained through gauge or emulsion.

Rob

[David M. Leugers]

I would be rather surprised to see that 64T was grainier than the old Ektachrome 160 S-8mm film. I shot a fair amount of that stock and never thought twice about projecting it. It looked great when properly lighted even though it was not as sharp and a whole lot more grainier than Kodachrome. The beautiful colors of 64T along with its better lattitude and softer contrast will make for maybe the better of both worlds, projection and transfer. It would be the best if we could have both Kodachrome and Ektachrome 64T.
The more palletes, the better I say.


David M. Leugers

[audadvnc]

But apart from those requiring a gritty degraded look, for whose purposes would an 8mm image be better than a 35mm image? What I'm saying is that better resolution is desirable, whether its obtained through gauge or emulsion.

Rob

If you're displaying to a small screen i.e. web screen or cell phone, the humble Super 8 format is quite suitable, and 35mm is complete overkill. Even S16mm resolution is greater than any TV or computer monitor can show.

[mathis]

It's the COMBINATION of a such a potentially wonderful stock as Kodachrome AND the many options and features found on many SUPER-8 cameras that I believe to be a potent combination.

I couldn´t agree more.

[tlatosmd]

Colors of E64T are a little bit more saturated. The grain of the E64T is coarser.

You know, now that I've thought about this it seems quite logical, not only about the grain. What I mean is that when I shoot K40 that outdated 10 or 15 years from now, it's much more saturated and grainy than fresh K40. You might say that's because it's been outdated for so long? Then why does it look just like all those vintage S8 films shot decades ago?

My guess is Kodak significantly reduced grain in their K40 emulsion within the last 10 years, just as they did with saturation. I mean, c'mon, some of you guys seem to talk about it as if it were cartoonish technicolor.

Being aware of that, I wonder if 64T in those cameras working with it might be a replacement for what K40 used to be but isn't anymore.